Archive for the ‘Feminism’ Category
Apparently the point of the feminist revolution was so that women everywhere could “trail-blaze” for the sake of young girls regarding things such as…..
…posing for Maxim.
Olivia Munn talks about paving the way for young girls “like her 2 year old niece” in her rant regarding the backlash on her Maxim spread.
This is old.
The slut shaming is uncalled for, divide and conquer at its best. At the same time, don’t expect me to be glowing with happiness that yet another woman is buying this silly idea that doing a photo spread for the boys is empowered. Bullshit. Come back and talk to me when you’re doing something that doesn’t fit into the everyday paradigm of WOMAN=SEX. Not sure what in the hell is supposed to make me grateful about seeing this continuously upheld by women who think they’re doing something revolutionary, and HEY even better, let’s pass this fucked up structure onto our daughters without a shred of critical thought!
There’s this idea going around that being comfortable with one’s own sexuality, or working towards it, logically results in putting oneself out there as an oil-slicked commodity. It saddens me that in this day and age that’s the idea that women are buying into, and that they’ve been deluded enough to think that it somehow makes a difference. This is everyday misogyny, feminism hijacked, buy more shit/eat less/workout more/tweak, nip, tuck to the nines so you can properly fit into the role of woman.
And don’t paint me as someone who “just needs a good fuck” because I resent you for being just another woman to corner us all in this box. You’re not doing me any favors. Don’t act like it. Sure, pretend that your actions have no impact whatsoever, but acting like some sort of pioneer is far more insulting to my intelligence.
Ani DiFranco said it best:
Some chick says
Thank you for saying all the things I never do
I say you know, the thanks I get is to take all the shit for you
It’s nice that you listen
It would be nice if you joined in
As long as you play their game girl, you’re never gonna win
- Face up and Sing
ETA: I forgot my ever present disclaimer. This isn’t meant to criticize the ever day woman who does the things society sort of promotes as necessary to be a proper woman, etc. etc. Yeah, we all capitulate to some degree, I completely understand this and it’s a part of life. Her defense irked me in particular though, especially the whole trailblazer aspect.
Posted in Feminism | No Comments »
I’m Marching Because… These streets are mine too! taken by Anna Overseas – you can find more of her amazing Take Back the Night photos, as well as other activist marches on Flickr!!
Echidne of the Snakes has an amazing post up right now about the limitations women face in terms of going out:
Why am I doing this? Because I have learned that those very basics have become so obscured that many men and women no longer see them at all, no longer regard sexism a problem and no longer think that misogyny is a serious matter. I learned this during many recent discussions about Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and Sarah Palin, about sexism and racism in politics and about the post-feminist era we supposedly now inhabit.
In one of those discussions this was said:
Which is why, if I had to choose simply on this basis and no other, I’d rather see a black man in the White House than a woman.
Women don’t get stopped in their cars by cops just because they are women.
The reference here is to racial profiling, and it is a serious problem. So is religious profiling of Muslims or those who are suspected of being Muslims or Arabs. It’s not my intention to downplay the particular problems of racial, religious or even gender-based (read: male) police profiling. But I was dumbstruck by this comment, just dumbstruck, because my first reaction was that women would be a lot less likely to be out driving their cars in the first place, especially alone or late at night. My second reaction was the realization that people mostly don’t see that female fear of the outside as a civil rights issue or a human rights issue. It’s just How Things Are.
Yet the difference in our ability to go out, alone and fairly safely, is highly dependent on whether we are men or women. In some societies women are not allowed to go out alone at all, but only in the company of a male relative. In other societies women may be allowed to go the stores and such on their own but cannot travel abroad without their husband’s permission. In many societies women who go out alone are regarded as prostitutes or fair game for any sexual molester. In most societies women who go out alone at night are at greater risk than men who go out alone, because women have to deal not only with the risk of getting mugged but also with the risk of getting raped. They are seen as prey. So women adjust to this, accommodate themselves to this, stay at home and agree to live lesser lives because of their sex.
In response, Melissa at Shakesville asks readers what precautions they take when they go out. Still making my way through 400 comments and counting. Many of them include some pretty harrowing experiences of harassment.
Posted in Feminism | No Comments »
This is a wonderful piece of news:
Argentina: Non-Sexist Language for Reporters
BUENOS AIRES, Oct 21 (IPS) – An organisation of over 100 journalists in Argentina has drawn up ten “commandments” for news coverage of gender-based crimes, which include avoiding expressions like “crime of passion” and incorporating terms like “femicide.”
The document, by the Argentine Network of Journalists for Non-Sexist Communication (PAR), has already been debated in forums and delivered to social and cultural associations and editorial offices. It will be publicly launched on Nov. 25, International Day for the Elimination of Violence Against Women.
Its aim is to combat “invisible discrimination, which is often unintentional, but occurs because it has become natural in daily life,” Liliana Hendel, a psychologist and journalist for the subscription television news channel Todo Noticias, and one of the authors of the ten commandments, or decalogue, told IPS.
“We will uproot from our work the term ‘crime of passion’ to refer to murders of women who are victims of gender violence. Crimes of passion do not exist,” says item three of the document, for example.
According to Hendel, “to call a murder a crime of passion is to presuppose that it is a consequence of love, because ‘he loved her too much,’ which distances it from the concept of crime.”
She added that the idea of “love-sickness” hides the reality of a criminal who abuses power, to the extent that he owns a woman’s life and can kill her.” Statistics quoted by PAR indicate that in 99 percent of murders committed by spouses, lovers or partners, women are the victims.
The Network proposes terms like “femicide” (murders of women) or “feminicide” (crimes of humanity against women just because they are women). Other phrases recommended by feminist movements are “violence against women,” “gender-based violence” and “sexist violence.”
Consultation of female sources is stressed as a key to avoiding gender discrimination.
“Whether or not we are writing about gender issues, it is important to consult women lawyers, historians and women’s groups about their views on events, which will inexorably help us to see what we cannot see because it seems so natural,” Hendel said.
Among other evidence for sexism in news coverage, PAR mentions “detailed descriptions of what a woman was wearing or, in the case of murders committed by women, emphatic indignation because they go against ‘maternal instinct,’ which is a way of sacralising motherhood.”
“There is an exaggeration of the association between motherhood and womanhood, and an underlying need for women to be good,” the journalist said.
Posted in Feminism | No Comments »
I haven’t had much time for the blog lately and I just found out a couple days ago that it’s Domestic Violence Awareness Month! Here is an article I read a long time ago thanks to Monika at The Curious Escapades of Dee-Dee the Cat. Bold is my formatting!!!
ETA: I’m sad to realize that I probably didn’t find out from most of the blogs I read about one of October’s themes because they’re always covering issues concerning domestic violence and rape. It’s not exactly an issue that, if properly dealt with, would have an awareness month. (And the same can be said of some of the other themes as well.)
by Marie De Santis – Women’s Justice Center
There’s a seemingly simple little exercise we’ve done dozens of times at workshops on violence against women. The usual responses, however, are anything but simple. They’re confounding and cause for concern.
Recently we repeated the exercise with a conference room full of 70 social workers, advocates, therapists, and mental health workers. “Why don’t some domestic violence victims leave the relationship,” we ask? “Call out the reasons!”
The answers, as always, come fast and freely. “Because she doesn’t think she can make it on her own.” “Not enough money to feed the children.” “She feels obligated to her marital vows.” “It’s learned helplessness.” “She doesn’t believe she deserves better.” “She doesn’t know where to go.” “She wants the children to have a father.” etc.
I jot down the familiar list until the group exhausts their thoughts. And there, again, is the enigma. How, at this date, with this group, – with almost every group – do so many miss the obvious? To be sure there’s truth and need for remedy in every reason given. But the one thing that should top the list, the thing that freezes so many women in place, is not even mentioned at all.
Women often don’t leave domestic violence because they know that when they do leave the danger of more severe violence increases dramatically. Violence, and the sheer terror of it, is one of the principle reasons women don’t leave. And the women are right!
Fact: When domestic violence victims attempt to leave the relationship, the stalking and violence almost always escalates sharply as the perpetrator attempts to regain control.
Fact: The majority of domestic violence homicides occur as a woman attempts to leave or after she has left.
Fact: The most serious domestic violence injuries are perpetrated against women who have separated from the perpetrator.
The women know these dangers. They know them because they’ve already experienced the violent responses when they’ve attempted to assert themselves, even minimally, within the relationship. They know because the perpetrators have usually threatened precisely what they intend to if she does try to leave.
“Instead of Helping Me, They Sunk Me Even More”
The women also know these dangers are heightened still more because so many officials, first responders, and courts are also in denial of the gravity of her situation. And she’s right again. Despite the modern-day rhetoric about treating domestic violence seriously, the reality is that the critical protections she needs when leaving are still as precarious and unpredictable as a roll of the dice. One responder may help effectively. The next may ignore, mock, underestimate, misdiagnose, walk away, blame her, take her kids, shunt her into social services, arrest her, send her to counseling, or one way or another refuse to implement real power on her behalf, abandoning her to a perpetrator who is now more enraged than ever.
The paths leading up to so many domestic violence homicides are paved with officials’ failures to protect. Just weeks before she was murdered by her estranged husband, Maria hauntingly summed up her own, and so many others’ experiences with officials. “Instead of helping me,” she said, “They sunk me even more.”
You can work tirelessly and compassionately to social work, counsel, and support the victim. But if you ignore this critical piece of making sure the system puts failsafe brakes on the perpetrator and his violence, it will be for naught. The perpetrator will continue to stalk and terrorize or worse. The victim will still be trapped in the violent relationship no matter where she has moved and how much independence she has attained. In fact, the freer she is, the angrier he gets.
And if you look just a little closer, you’ll see that for domestic violence victims there really is no such thing as leaving, or escaping, until the system does, in fact, step up and effectively stop the perpetrator. There is no Mason Dixon line over which women can run and escape and be home free. The perpetrators can and do hunt her down anywhere.
Domestic Violence! Not ‘Domesticated Violence’, nor ‘Violence Lite’!
It’s interesting. When you do the same exercise, but merely shift to other forms of violent relationships, a group’s responses are dramatically different. “Why doesn’t the field slave,” for example, “Run away from the plantation in the middle of the night while the master sleeps?” The answers are immediate and unequivocal. “Because the slaves know they’ll get hunted down.” “Because they know if they’re caught they’ll get beaten like never before.” “Because they stand a good chance of getting killed.”
The first answers out are never ‘learned helplessness’, ‘low self esteem’, or ‘not enough money’ even though there’s no question these same psycho-social factors are just as much at work. In fact, if one were to lead off their explanations as to ‘why slaves don’t leave’ with the ‘learned helplessness’ or ‘not enough money’ aspect, the insult of it would ring perfectly clear.
Whether you ask the question in regard to slaves, prisoners of war, kidnap victims, concentration camp captives, or residents of violent regimes, etc., the horrific dynamics and dangers of attempting to escape are well understood by everyone. Some victims of these violent relationships do, in fact, make a run for it. Some succeed. Some are killed. Some are recaptured and punished unmercifully.
Most victims, however, never go beyond an initial evaluation of the risks. The obvious dangers are just too great. They stay. Violence works. Violence, and the sheer terrorizing threat of it, has always, everywhere, worked better than anything else to keep victims compliant and pinned in place.
So why the glaring blind spot in regard to domestic violence victims? Why are women denied even the validation of the dangerous dynamics of her dilemma? Why do so many people still hold a view, as cloaked as it may be in paternal tones, that is more in sync with the perpetrator’s stance than with the victim’s? The view that the problem rests with her. That it’s she that needs to be propped up and fixed.
As if this violence that plagues women around the world is a ‘domesticated violence’, or ‘violence lite’!
The Patriarchy Still Rules! And Still Needs to be Upended!
The glaring blind spot is rooted deep in the self-preservation mechanisms of patriarchal rule. If the violent repression of women were to be recognized on a par with other violent repressions it would require nothing short of upending the missions of law enforcement, prosecutors, courts, and service organizations, and not just the adjustment of rhetoric we have now. The male-dominated power structure resists implementing its real powers on behalf of women in order to preserve the power for itself. That’s fairly obvious.
But what about the blind spot of so many social workers, advocates, and therapists? Those who care about the women, and dedicate their lives to helping them? Perhaps it’s one more layer of the battered women’s syndrome that needs to be exposed. Because if we ourselves truly recognize the gravity of women’s plight, we, too, have to move beyond the safety zones of the nurturing, supportive roles we find so comfortable.
We will be compelled to step out, challenge, watchdog, fight, demand, and make sure that the powerful, male-dominated institutions are, in fact, upended, and that they, indeed, begin to implement their full powers on behalf of women, and against the perpetrators. Only then will domestic violence victims truly have a real choice to leave.
Posted in Feminism | No Comments »
Installments on Palin-Mania/Republican hypocrisy is slow going, and at this point I think the intended two part post may go into three.
In the meantime, an incredible speech showed up in my feed from the Association for Women’s Rights in Development. It is about how integral it is for “peacekeepers” in Africa to take stronger measures to STOP the horrifying sexual violence and rape that women are experiencing. It feels absurd that I’m even typing something like that, as if this shouldn’t be obvious or something.
More long quoting, and I’d like to plug the Association for Women’s Rights in Development a bit more. I added their site to my reader a little while ago, but forgot to categorize it so it languished at the bottom…. Noticed it today and have been looking through it… seems like an amazing site with news concerning women all over the world.
The title of this speech resonated with me – “Peace is a mere illusion when rape continues.” I don’t want to belittle what African women are going through. It is a horrific nightmare. But it also made me think about the concept of rape tourism, where white men seek out Native American women on reservations for the specific purpose of raping them – knowing that they won’t have to face any consequences. It made me think about how certain women are deemed “unrapeable” due to their color or their profession. The numerous GANG RAPES that have occurred in the US in the past few years that have gone unpunished. It made me think of the low convictions of rapists in general, how the deck is stacked against a woman who seeks to press charges and the number of women who don’t report their cases at all.
This is terrorism.
So, onto quoting some excerpts of the speech by Stephen Lewis, or read the full text here.
Here is an unassailable truth: if sexual violence is not addressed during the course of a conflict, then sexual violence will haunt the post-conflict period, and make of the ostensible peace a mockery for half the population.
Three days ago, I returned from Liberia. While in the country, I met with President Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, with senior officials of the Ministry of Health, with the Minister of Gender, with the leadership of the Clinton Foundation, with the consultant who drafted the legislation for the special court to try sexual offences, with the UNICEF Representative and significant numbers of the UNICEF staff. Unfortunately, I did not have the opportunity to meet with UNMIL, but the UN Mission in Liberia and its peacekeeping forces were inevitably a part of every conversation.
She was speaking about the contagion of sexual violence that currently engulfs the country and causes such intense concern. The statistics are horrifying: a recent study by UNICEF indicated that more than fifty per cent of all reported rapes are brutal assaults on young girls between the ages of ten and fourteen. The gender advisor in UNICEF felt that the percentage was probably on the rise, and it’s feared that increases in the HIV rates among female youth will not be far behind. The Minister of Gender showed me figures for March, 2008, indicating that the majority of reported rapes in that month were committed against girls under the age of twelve, some under the age of five, and she narrated stories of gang rape so insensate and so depraved that it reminded me of exhibits in a Holocaust museum. A further survey, of all fifteen counties in the country, found that girls and boys were united in their conviction that young girls were the most endangered group in Liberia, and incredibly enough, that there was no place and no time of day or night where adolescent girls could be considered safe.
The context of my discussions is encapsulated in the words of the Deputy UN Envoy for the Rule of Law in Liberia when she said, as recently as May 20th: We cannot expect the future leaders of Liberia, the doctors, nurses, and engineers of Liberia to be brought up amongst men who are rapists and women who are angry, degraded, frightened, depressed, embarrassed and confused. Predictably, President Johnson-Sirleaf is thunderstruck by the force of the sexual violence. In a very real sense she is staking the integrity of her tenure on her ability to confront and subdue the war on women.
—————-
You may succeed in manufacturing a semblance of peace, but for the women of the country, the conflict continues in the most painful and eviscerating of ways.
In the case of Liberia, it isn’t a matter of a contentious mandate: as I said, Resolution 1325 is built into the obligations of peacekeeping. Anyone would argue that when a peacekeeper in the field knows of acts of sexual violence having been committed, or has reason to believe that acts of sexual violence have been or will be committed, then he or she has the obligation to intervene or, to use the language of the day, the responsibility to protect. But let me be even clearer about this. Peacekeepers aren’t mere passive observers of the human family. Peacekeepers move into a country; they learn its social architecture; they watch the roiling political terrain on a day-to-day basis. They come to know the foibles, to know the extremes, to know the anomalies. More often than not, they can tell when trouble is brewing. They can intuit when men might hurtle out of control. They have the pulse of the culture. When it unravels, they’re there to bear witness. I’m saying that when patterns of sexual violence emerge, peacekeepers are rarely surprised. In some cases, they alone have anticipated the atrocities in the offing. And with that knowledge comes obligation. With that insight comes responsibility. It isn’t enough to stop the shooting when the raping continues apace. The only worthwhile armistice restores peace for the entire population, male and female. There can be no satisfaction in claiming a truce or a peace treaty which is soaked in the carnage of the women of the land.
Posted in Feminism | No Comments »
…as it was to justify the Iraq war. Sadly we had some of the more prominent women’s organizations advocating the war along with male politicians who all of a sudden got this yen for freeing oppressed women from evil brown men! Yeah, ok. Iraqi women thank you for skyrocketing rates of rape, trafficking and prostitution and the destabilization of their families as you sit bandying about the idea of women’s rights being in the Iraqi constitution.
Now we get to see the hypocrisy in action all over again. I think I’ve been in a state of mild shock since Palin was announced as McCain’s VP pick. I admit that I was a little resentful about Carly Fiorina and other Republican women jumping to defend Palin off the bat, but I figured, at least SOMEONE is speaking up about sexism. At the same time, defending a woman from sexism isn’t about whether she’s part of the same political party as you are. I figured Fiorina’s statements would fade off and be forgotten in an “isn’t that quaint” way.
Not so. The Republicans have picked up the idea of sexism and RUN with it. People who were pegging Clinton with using “the gender card” a few weeks ago are discussing sexism on the evening news as if it’s SOMETHING THAT MATTERS TO THEM. I’m angry at this cynical ploy to draw in those of us who ACTUALLY CARE. Sean Hannity is now apparently an expert on what feminism is and declared Palin a feminist the other day. Why? Well, because she’s part of the group “Feminists for Life”! I mean, duh.
So, let’s get a few things out of the way. I think the “gender card/race card” stuff is UTTER BULLSHIT. It prevents actual dialog and REAL conversation about sexism and racism because people are so ready to pounce on anyone who points out injustice. It’s a way to maintain the status quo.
Now – what HAVE I seen sexist towards Sarah Palin? This idea runs rampant that as a mother of five children she could not handle the Vice Presidential position. If Todd Palin were the one up for VP, no one would be asking this question because children are never considered an integral part of a man’s identity. Yet she would be under scrutiny as his wife and would be expected to ACCOMMODATE his bid for VP in whatever way necessary – as a wife, she is considered to have no agency of her own but exists to prop up her husband’s ambitions. Todd Palin the husband and father is not someone who ever enters these conversations of whether as a mother of five, she can do it.
I’ve seen the typical sexism and misogyny coming from liberal men towards any woman they don’t like, a continuation of the hateful diatribe that was leveled towards Clinton and her supporters.
I see the misogyny in the blogs that have appeared to concentrate on her fuckability, because a woman can never be honored solely for her accomplishments and who she is as a person. She is first and foremost a semen receptacle, NEVER a human being. Really boys, I’m sure she’d be flattered you find her worthy. Perhaps the story isn’t WOMEN WILL VOTE FOR ANYONE WITH A VAGINA but rather MEN WILL VOTE FOR A CANDIDATE THEY THINK IS HOT. And let’s not forget they’ll slam a woman who has the nerve to be in the public eye when in their estimation, she’s NOT attractive – how dare she!
Sarah Palin HAS had to endure sexist attacks, and I’m not going to withdraw my support in that arena based on party lines DESPITE her firm belief in policies that will be detrimental to women if they go into effect. AND YET, the Republicans have used the idea of sexism to shut down ANY criticism of Palin, when two weeks ago they were crucifying Clinton for using THE GENDER CARD. This is utter nonsense. A month ago all these men standing up to valiantly defend Palin from “sexist” attacks weren’t batting an eye at the daily stream of misogyny.
Posted in Feminism | No Comments »
I’ve been in the process of writing a new post for the past few days, but I’m so overwhelmed with all I’m reading that I’ve having a bit of trouble focusing. This post will be deleted and replaced with something a little more extensive, but in the meantime, this is why I am so beyond disgusted with Republicans:
Posted in Feminism | 2 Comments »
What??
Friday, August 29th, 2008
I am floored that
-
1) The media is actually talking TO us for once, instead of lining up the typical role call of men to talk ABOUT us and
2) THAT THEY EXPECT IT TO WORK. (One pair of ovaries is the same as any other, and we’ll be voting on that basis amirite?)
What dimension am I in?
McCain chooses a woman as his Vice Presidential candidate and now we have entreaties from them that the war on the glass ceiling doesn’t have to end with Hilary! Ahem. Drafting a woman to prop up your misogynist policies, when you pay attention to issues that affect women AT ALL, will not get me to vote for you. It’s a slap in the face. Nor can you pat yourself on the back for being so “progressive” as to choose a woman and proclaim that you can finally overcome the glass ceiling. I will believe this when women have TRULY REPRESENTATIVE numbers in government. The white hetero male monopoly on government will not be transformed into a place that all of a sudden welcomes women and minorities thanks to a woman Vice President, or EVEN a woman President. But yes, she really does expect us, as someone chosen by a man for a very specific purpose, to believe that she can “shatter the glass ceiling once and for all.”
And sending Huckabee – Mike Huckabee as an ambassador to tell women that there’s a PLACE for us with the Republicans is probably the MOST LAUGHABLE THING I have heard all week. This is a man who signed a 1998 FULL PAGE USA Today Ad advocating that a wife “submit herself graciously to the servant leadership of her husband even as the church willingly submits to the headship of Christ.”
This is the man who pardoned a rapist during his term as governor because he felt the man was put away for “political” reasons. This was despite NUMEROUS letters from the women(sluts) he had raped, including one of Clinton’s cousins(democrat sluts less deserving of justice). This rapist then went on to RAPE AND MURDER TWO MORE WOMEN. I wonder what kind of judgment your god has in store for you Huckabee. And yet, he has the gall to try and appeal to us (The article on this circus is here.):
“Sarah Palin is a pleasant surprise for those of us who had hoped that Senator McCain would pick a principled and authentic conservative pro-life leader,” former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee said.
Huckabee also used the Palin pick to reach out to women.
“Governor Palin … will remind women that if they are not welcome on the Democrat’s ticket, they have a place with Republicans,” he said.
Pleasant surprise… so lukewarm! Kind of makes me snicker to think how he must feel about a woman being appointed over an oh so godly man like him. Lovely invitation but I won’t be accepting, as I’m not interested in fulfilling your vision of woman as faithful servant to husband and fetus incubator, only for you to want to trot me out when convenient. Don’t try to sell me on a candidate who thinks the antidote to sexism is “work harder, don’t say anything”. (PLEASE say this to the women working at Wal-Mart with a straight face.)
I really like the way Melissa McEwan put it at Shakesville:
You know, there are a lot of reasons I’m feeling pissed about John McCain’s selection of Sarah Palin.
I’m pissed at the Dems because it feels like they let Clinton get beat to fuck against that glass ceiling until she was black and blue only for the fucking Republicans to make use of her sacrifice, while the Democrats gave us a total dipshit who made fun of his wife being educated in his acceptance speech.
And I’m pissed at the GOP who, chief among them John McCain, have made patently clear while going after Obama that the experience threshold for a national ticket is beyond what he has, and that said threshold is non-negotiable, but nonetheless chose someone who failed to pass that threshold, ergo heavily suggesting that Palin is merely a token.
And I’m pissed at everyone who’s using the nomination of a woman to a national ticket to unleash yet another torrent of misogyny, whether to demean or to “honor” her.
But mostly I’m pissed that John McCain and Karl Rove and the GOP shat all over a historic moment in our nation’s history and couldn’t give Obama one. goddamn. day. to be rightfully celebrated as a candidate of national historical significance. Everyone should be talking about that speech today. Everyone should be contemplating what it means to have that barrier broken, should be thinking about fucking bookends.
Edited to add: Some of this may be construed as an attack on Palin herself. Don’t mean to characterize her as a mindless borg, but I do think that the men of the Republican party are using her for a very specific purpose.
Other posts I really enjoyed on the matter:
McCain Chose Palin?! >> Karnythia at The Angry Black Woman
Colluder of the Week: Sara Palin >> Renee at Womanist Musings
Firedoglake: Sarah Palin Broke the Law to advocate the defeat of environmental initiatives.
Jump off the Bridge: My Problem with Palin
Posted in Feminism | 1 Comment »
Coming home from work is always so entertaining, being I get to listen to the ultimate amateur in talk radio, and a premier conservative misogynist, Steve Malzberg. I may not agree with Sean Hannity or Rush Limbaugh, but at the very least they’re “good” at what they do.
Today (August 25th) Steve was harping on Gwen Ifill and Michelle Obama. Basically, half his show consists of tearing apart any woman with an independent thought in her head. He didn’t like Gwen Ifill’s assessment of the American people’s reaction to Michelle Obama… his first response? “Get a life.” Oh so articulate!
I’d love a count of how many times he calls Andrea Mitchell, one of the premier news correspondents, MRS. GREENSPAN on his show – it really pisses him off that Andrea Mitchell is “too feminist” to take her husband’s name. Because goddess forbid she or any woman actually have an identity apart from their husband… Dear Steve: the adoption of a man’s name upon marriage is not a woman’s biological imperative. Fuck off.
Today he was trying to drive home the point to misogynists everywhere that Michelle Obama is NOT your “average mother” or your “average housewife.” Because apparently these “average” women would never dare to criticize America, nor would they dare, especially if they are BLACK women to have an opinion on race. Seriously… I want to know, WTF is he implying when he says this shit? What is your “average mother” or your “average housewife”?
I’m never quite sure what these people think we’re supposed to do in terms of change. She criticized America, therefore she’s NOT A PATRIOT!!! It matters little to me whether she is or not. What matters to me is someone who sees the issues and resolves to face them, to change them. The idea that we’re supposed to shut up and sit down isn’t patriotism. I suppose this is the problem. They are so out of touch that they don’t feel there’s ANY need for change. There’s no racism, there’s no sexism. There’s no need to alleviate poverty. Things are just fine. Now give me my SUV!
Anyway… Listening to good old Steve reminded me of a recent post of Twisty’s over at I Blame the Patriarchy about NPR’s coverage of the ever so pressing topic of the fashion of the First Ladies. I shall quote it here:
Is it sexist to analyze firstladyal fashion? Not at all, says Jackie Kennedy’s stylist. Their husbands are men of action in blue-suit-red-tie uniforms, but first ladies are symbols.
Of what? Of male dominance. Of the nuclear family, of the dutiful wife, of the absolute necessity of womanly beauty practices, of the unquestionable heterosexuality of the president. First ladies must exude, in perfect balance, femininity, self-sacrifice, motherhood, a gentle, quiet respectability, and the notion that they are fairly intelligent, but not more intelligent than the president. They do this, not just by looking the other way when their husbands can’t keep it in their pants, but by selecting their fashion designers and plucking their eyebrows with utmost care. For presidential spouses, dressing symbolically is both a science and an art. It’s “walking the fashion tightrope,” says NPR.
What the NPR non-story neglected to mention is that, while first ladies get more news coverage, the fashion tightrope is not their exclusive purview. All women are symbols who are expected to prop up patriarchal myths by exuding perfect balances of impossible, degrading, bogus constructs.
Meanwhile, men are free to roam the countryside, without shaving their legs or contemplating the social implications of the plunge of their necklines, doing stuff.
Hate to break it to you people, but Jackie did a lot more interesting things than look pretty.
Posted in Feminism | No Comments »
